A former Naughty Dog employee claims that Sony pressured the developer to create Uncharted instead of an unnamed fantasy title in order to appeal to an older audience. In this piece, I share my reaction to his comments.
Wouldn't exactly call being told to make one type of game rather than another "micro" managing. Being told to a certain type of game with such-and-such elements within such-and-such time is micromanaging.
Why is only Naughty Dog and Uncharted mentioned/tagged in this article? Last time I checked, they said that Sony pushed ALL of its studios to aim for a more realistic approach, not just ND. It's not really "micro-managing". They give their devs time to make games. Polyphony, Team ICO and even Insomniac(being third-party) was given an extra year to work on Resistance 3 .
Sony micro-manage? That's worth a larf. They give the the devs all the resources and time they need. They are the only company in console gaming that gives the devs full control int ehir product(outside letting them put their games on another system, unless its an MMO of course) Look at GT5 and how much time they gave them. Hell, look at FFversusXIII. Sony is really far to kind sometimes, but if Sony didn't work the way they did, we wouldn't have 10-15 exclusives a year. They really give the devs maximum to time to create the best experiences possible. At least in my opinion.
You are right. Think about it.Which system except a Sony one would have given games like HR, LBP and Demon Souls a chance?
Funny because I hear the complete opposite all the time. From what I've heard it's enjoyable to be under Sony's wing from a developer standpoint.
hmmmm, developer list growing NOT shrinking kinda points to the opposite. Im sure they do have some kind of input but if what the things have had to say about their relationships with sony are anything to go by it seems they give more freedom than both of their competitors especially with retail games. Pros and cons of each of this gens players models. Sonys seems to work well for them which in term works well for me as ive benefited since i purchased the console to the present day.
Kind of have to wonder why 3rd party devs like Square all but outright abandoned the PS3 for the 360, much less why then MS began implementing demands. Or would it just be better to ask why Sony failed to deploy "tech support ninjas" like they had in the PS1 days?
thats called.... you cant win em all dude...well known idioms. sony will have some control and say... im not one of these devs so i obviously cant make a 1st hand comment
Yes, like how Bamco put TOV in 360 instead of PS3. It's not how Sony failed. It's how the 3rd party devs were blinded by Benjamins.
How is telling them you think Uncharted would do better because of an older audience, micromanaging? And if Sony told them to make a game that would go on to be one of the most beautiful games ever, then thank you Sony! Also, as we have seen with numerous PS3 exclusives, Sony allows their developers to take their time, see GT5, FFXIII Versus, and The Last Guardian
If Sony did not really give devs the freedom, we won't have incredible titles like Flower and the upcoming Journey.
I think they are talking about in-house developers but if this report is true then Sony's micro-managing did actually something positive because we got Uncharted in the end. :)
I'm very grateful Sony steered it's developers towards more mature titles. As a 30 year old gamer my interest during the PS2 era was declining. Now that I'm thinking about I didn't game much during that generation, I had no interest in Jak, Ratchet or Sly. PS3 has pulled me right back into this hobby, so much so I frequently get in strife off my misses for gaming too much ;).
That's called being a publisher
micro mangement is when they criticize every little thing, macro management is when they criticize a few major things. im gonna take a leap and say that whether a game has a realistic approach or not fits under the umbrella of macro management. funny to see an article that claims sony does the opposite of what pretty much all devs so far have said they do though. theirs either a huge, fantastic, elaborate (and unnecessary) cover up and this just slipped by to the media or sony is giving freedom to their developers. im gonna go ahead and keep thinking sony gives freedom to their developers
Somehow I doubt Naughty Dog was 'pressured'. I'm sure Sony will have had discussions with ND (a company they own after all) about the type of market they were aiming at and other factors, and ND came up with a title that fit the criteria. Sony are just doing their job as publisher and owner. You have to take any 'former employee' stories with a grain of salt as often there's a reason why an employee is 'former', and it's not always because of positive career development! And do we know that this former employee was actually senior enough to be sat in on meetings with Sony to discuss strategic direction? The author should also look at what micro-management really is....
Why is it that ex-employees are always the ones being asked these things and it is always negative?
Because that's the only way to find "dirt" on Sony. Besides, if I remember correctly, it wasn't an unnamed title, but Uncharted itself, that was changed.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.